Fumiya Baba1,2, Satoshi Tanaka3, Yoshinori Nonogaki3, Shinji Hasegawa3, Minami Nishihashi3, Shiho Ayakawa4, Maho Yamada5, Yuta Shibamoto6. 1. Department of Radiotherapy, Nagoya City West Medical Center, 1-1-1 Hirate-cho, Kita-ku, Nagoya, 462-8508, Japan. fbaba@bd5.so-net.ne.jp. 2. Department of Radiology, Nagoya City University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, 1 Kawasumi, Mizuho-cho, Mizuho-ku, Nagoya, 467-8601, Japan. fbaba@bd5.so-net.ne.jp. 3. Department of Radiological Technology, Japan Community Healthcare Organization Chukyo Hospital, 1-1-10 Sanjo, Minami-ku, Nagoya, 457-8510, Japan. 4. Department of Radiology, Japan Community Healthcare Organization Chukyo Hospital, 1-1-10 Sanjo, Minami-ku, Nagoya, 457-8510, Japan. 5. Department of Radiotherapy, Nagoya City West Medical Center, 1-1-1 Hirate-cho, Kita-ku, Nagoya, 462-8508, Japan. 6. Department of Radiology, Nagoya City University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, 1 Kawasumi, Mizuho-cho, Mizuho-ku, Nagoya, 467-8601, Japan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to compare the respiration-stabilizing abilities of audio coaching (AC) and AC with visual feedback (VF) with that of free breathing (FB). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten healthy volunteers were told to breathe in FB, under AC and under AC + VF in random order. The standard deviation (SD) values of the respiratory cycle, the amplitude, the lowest points (exhalation), and the highest points (inhalation) of respiratory wave were used as indices of respiratory stability. RESULTS: Compared with FB, the AC method significantly improved respiratory cycle stability (p = 0.001). The AC + VF method improved the stability of the respiratory cycle, the amplitude and the lowest point of respiratory wave (all p < 0.001). In analyses of each subject's data, compared with FB, the AC method significantly improved the respiratory cycle stability in five subjects, and the AC + VF method improved the stability of the respiratory cycle, the amplitude and the lowest point of respiratory wave in 4, 5, and 4 subjects, respectively. In two cases, coaching did not improve respiratory stability. CONCLUSION: The AC + VF method had the most beneficial effects on respiratory stability. However, coaching is not necessarily effective in all cases. Therefore, the most suitable method should be chosen on an individual basis.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to compare the respiration-stabilizing abilities of audio coaching (AC) and AC with visual feedback (VF) with that of free breathing (FB). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten healthy volunteers were told to breathe in FB, under AC and under AC + VF in random order. The standard deviation (SD) values of the respiratory cycle, the amplitude, the lowest points (exhalation), and the highest points (inhalation) of respiratory wave were used as indices of respiratory stability. RESULTS: Compared with FB, the AC method significantly improved respiratory cycle stability (p = 0.001). The AC + VF method improved the stability of the respiratory cycle, the amplitude and the lowest point of respiratory wave (all p < 0.001). In analyses of each subject's data, compared with FB, the AC method significantly improved the respiratory cycle stability in five subjects, and the AC + VF method improved the stability of the respiratory cycle, the amplitude and the lowest point of respiratory wave in 4, 5, and 4 subjects, respectively. In two cases, coaching did not improve respiratory stability. CONCLUSION: The AC + VF method had the most beneficial effects on respiratory stability. However, coaching is not necessarily effective in all cases. Therefore, the most suitable method should be chosen on an individual basis.
Entities:
Keywords:
Audio coaching; Free breathing; Stability of respiration; Suitable method for each individual; Visual feedback
Authors: S Shimizu; H Shirato; S Ogura; H Akita-Dosaka; K Kitamura; T Nishioka; K Kagei; M Nishimura; K Miyasaka Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2001-10-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Danny Lee; Peter B Greer; Joanna Ludbrook; Jameen Arm; Perry Hunter; Sean Pollock; Kuldeep Makhija; Ricky T O'brien; Taeho Kim; Paul Keall Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2015-11-18 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Yvonne Dzierma; Frank G Nuesken; Jochen Fleckenstein; Stephanie Kremp; Norbert P Licht; Christian Ruebe Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-01-10 Impact factor: 3.240